Manager Harassed Employee Suffering from Seizures by Comparing Her to The Exorcist’s Possessed Child

In Miss Charlene Friend v MHS Homes Ltd, a harassed employee succeeded with her claims of discrimination and harassment after her manager likened her to Regan from The Exorcist—a comment made in reference to her appearance during disability-related seizures.

Below, we discuss what happened in the case and the judgment the employment tribunal came to. If you’ve faced similar treatment by a harassing superior, make sure to contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can analyse your circumstances and discuss how you could proceed.

To begin, simply:

The Facts in Miss Charlene Friend v MHS Homes Ltd

Harassed Employee – Discrimination and Harassment Claim Background

Miss Charlene Friend (“the Claimant”) began working as a housing officer on a six-month contract for MHS Homes Ltd (“the Respondent”) on 18 June 2018. During proceedings, the tribunal learned she’d been a “violent gang assault” victim in 2014, leaving her with serious head injuries.

The tribunal also learned that in October 2021, she was informed she had cognitive impairment of dissociative seizures. Her first seizure occurred at work just a few months earlier in July. Following the incident, her doctor said it could’ve partly resulted from “delayed psychological trauma and mental health issues.”

OH Referral Highlights Disability Under Equality Act 2010

After the Claimant commenced employment, she settled in well. On 21 March 2021, she had a performance review with her then-team leader, Mrs Cheryl Bell, during which she was told, “You have fitted in really well and picked up our systems quickly…I am really pleased with your work over the last year, and I think it is great that you have been offered a permanent role.” The Respondent recognised her high performance, leading to her being awarded a £1720 bonus for the year.

The Claimant was then offered a permanent role as a customer liaison officer, level 2. She began this role in May, and Ms Lisa Gilbert became her new team leader. Unfortunately, as the weeks rolled on, the Claimant struggled with the training for her new role, raising her concerns.

HR subsequently corresponded with the Claimant, leading to an occupational health (OH) referral. By 26 June, OH clinician Ms Sue Morley provided her report, highlighting that the Claimant had a disability which likely fell within the scope of the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, she recommended that the Claimant be referred for an expert assessment of her neurological difficulties.

Performance Concerns Escalate, Leading to Alleged Inappropriate Remarks by Manager

The Claimant continued to struggle in her role, and on 19 December, Ms Gilbert undertook a performance review. This was impromptu and sent the Claimant into a “state of panic.” During the meeting, Ms Gilbert informed her that she was to be placed on a capabilities performance improvement plan, which could result in dismissal if her performance didn’t improve.

This meeting upset the Claimant and eventually led to her being referred to OH again. A subsequent report was issued on 9 January 2020, advising that a meeting be set up between themselves, the Claimant, HR, and her managers. OH explained how the Claimant had concerns about whether her managers fully understood the extent to which her head injuries could impact her performance. This meeting was suggested to iron out those concerns.

On 11 February, the meeting took place, after which the Claimant stated, “Today felt like a massive weight off my mind, so thank you for arranging it, I feel a lot better.” Unfortunately, issues concerning her performance continued over the following months, and things came to a head on 24 September, when she overheard a telephone call involving her manager. Allegedly, Ms Gilbert said the Claimant was “lazy,” “underperforming,” and that she “had to find a way to let her [the Claimant] go.”

Hearing this conversation triggered the Claimant’s anxiety. She immediately left the office in a distraught state, called her GP, and was signed off work for seven weeks. Since she couldn’t envision returning to work under Ms Gilbert, Mrs Bell took over as her line manager upon her return to work on 16 November.

Harassed Employee Referred to as “Regan” from the Exorcist

On 31 December, the Claimant was invited to a formal capability meeting to discuss concerns regarding her performance. This meeting took place on 8 January 2021, and a week later, a written warning concerning her timekeeping and training was issued. By March, Ms Gilbert had taken back her responsibility as the Claimant’s line manager.

Over the coming months, the Claimant attended various OH appointments, and on 13 July, she attended another performance review. At this time, she was told there was a “noticeable difference” in her performance and any concerns over her capability had diminished.

Sadly, just a week later, on 20 July, the Claimant was taken to hospital after having a seizure at work. While one might expect their manager to be understanding in such circumstances, this didn’t appear to be the case for the Claimant. She claimed that, following the incident, Ms Gilbert frequently called her “Regan,” the main character from The Exorcist who was possessed by the Devil.

This reference linked to the way the Claimant looked during her seizures and how the Regan character foamed at the mouth when possessed. During proceedings, the tribunal shared one of the Claimant’s witness statements, where she outlined her feelings of workplace harassment. She said, “I felt terrible when she would call me this name…I believe in demonic possession, and when she would tell me I needed an exorcism, it broke my heart.”

Employment Tribunal Claims Pursued by Harassed Employee

The harassed employee continued to regularly have seizures following the initial incident. In a letter dated 15 December, a neuropsychiatrist stated her seizures were likely triggered, at least partly, by workplace difficulties.

Further performance reviews and OH assessments then followed, but by 11 April 2022, the Claimant raised a formal grievance. This regarded “ongoing disability discrimination,” where she discussed her historical issues at work and the Respondent’s failure to resolve them.

On 28 April, the Respondent confirmed receipt of the grievance and discussed what would happen next. That same day, though, the Claimant didn’t attend work due to ill health, and would in fact never return.

Just a few days later, a grievance meeting happened, and on 27 June, the Claimant received an outcome letter. According to the tribunal’s summary, the majority of her complaints, including discrimination arising from disability and workplace harassment, were upheld.

However, despite these findings, by correspondence sent by the Respondent on 11 January 2024, the Claimant was dismissed. The Respondent stated this decision was based on incapability grounds, and provided her with five weeks’ notice.

While the Claimant had a right to appeal the decision, she didn’t exercise it. Instead, she pursued claims she’d presented to the employment tribunal on 5 July 2022, following ACAS early conciliation in the preceding months. Among other things, she claimed discriminatory harassment and discrimination arising from disability.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Tribunal Dismisses Direct Disability Discrimination Claim

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal began by assessing the merits of direct disability discrimination. However, this case was quickly dismissed. While the harassed employee was disabled, her dismissal arose from her inability to return to work for the foreseeable future. Had a non-disabled employee been in the same circumstances, the tribunal believed they would have been treated no differently.

Discrimination Arising from Disability: Harassed Employee Succeeds

The tribunal then turned to the Claimant’s discrimination arising from disability claim. It had to determine whether the Claimant faced unfavourable treatment as a result of something arising from her disability. It also had to consider whether the Respondent had a defence—i.e. that the unfavourable treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The tribunal found, among other things, that the decision to withhold her yearly bonus, not act on the OH’s recommendations, and dismiss her all amounted to unfavourable treatment. Focusing on the withheld bonus and dismissal, both occurred due to the Claimant’s poor performance, which arose because of her disability. Furthermore, the tribunal heard no evidence to support that these decisions arose as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims—consequently ruling in the Claimant’s favour.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments

Before analysing the Claimant’s discriminatory harassment claim, the tribunal deliberated on whether the Respondent had failed to provide reasonable adjustments. Under the Equality Act 2010, employers must make reasonable adjustments when they know, or should reasonably know, that a disabled employee faces a substantial disadvantage compared to their non-disabled counterparts.

In this case, the Respondent knew of the Claimant’s disability. This was disclosed at the beginning of her employment, and various future OH appointments confirmed this knowledge. However, despite the Respondent knowing of her disabilities and that they affected her work, it failed to provide adjustments. Examples included failing to implement OH recommendations or altering her workload.

The tribunal concluded the extent of the disabilities suffered by the harassed employee wasn’t fully understood or appreciated. Thus, it ruled that the Respondent was guilty of failing to provide reasonable adjustments.

Discriminatory Harassment Claim Upheld

Finally, the tribunal considered the workplace harassment claim. It first set out the legal definition:

“A person “A” harasses another “B”, if “A” engages in unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, or of a sexual nature, which has the purpose or effect of violating the dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.”

Ultimately, this claim referred to the conduct of the alleged harassing manager, Ms Gilbert. Among other things, the tribunal considered how she referred to the Claimant as “Regan” and “lazy.” In all cases, the tribunal concluded the behaviour amounted to unwanted conduct, and, whether or not it was intended, violated the Claimant’s dignity or created a humiliating environment for her. Because of this, the discriminatory harassment claim succeeded.

Remaining Claims Dismissed, Compensation to Be Decided

The tribunal then went on to dismiss the Claimant’s final claims of unauthorised deductions from wages and unfair dismissal. However, since she succeeded with her failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination and harassment claims, the harassed employee could now be awarded compensation in a future remedy hearing. This will be entirely dependent on whether the parties can settle the matter outside of court first.

Get Help With Redmans

If you have any questions or believe your employment rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors today. As specialists in the sector, we can answer your queries and provide expert advice.

To learn how we could help you, simply: